'Science' is no better than 'religion'

[bhavv]

There is when scientists do something like falsifying data, or incorrectly accounting for something like an error in testing equipment. There's plenty that can be done improperly which could be used to discredit a scientist's experiment.

Indeed, but statistical testing everyone's results would account for null results caused by human error.

 

[Tahuti]

I would like to wholeheartedly speak out my support for the thread, and the spirit of its OP!

And scientists are doing it a lot better, which kind of contradicts the threads title.

Why is that? Or is this just the typical "Science is awesome, religion sux, lololol" kind of post?

 

[bhavv]

But religion does indeed sux.

 

[warpus]

Assuming the scientific consensus actually exists, who is going to tell you what it is?

Nobody, that is up for me to research. In some cases it's not easy, given the bs overload on the internet factor.. but in a lot of cases it's easy enough.

Let's say for example I want to figure out the scientific consensus on what the hell gravity is. I would go to wikipedia, read the article, and it would tell me the different theories that explain gravity, as well as possible theoretical models that scientists are working on, how much evidence is there for them, what the experts think, and so on. Then at the bottom there's a bunch of sources that I can follow up on. Being the very vigilant warpus that I am, I could then pose the question in /r/askscience on reddit, and ask the physicists there to tell me the scientific consensus on gravity. I could check other encyclopedias, physics textbooks, I could use google to see what's out there, and in the end I would probably come to the conclusion that ... {just a sec, checking} .. the general theory of relativity is the best theory we have that describes gravity.

So obviously in that case it's easy, but a lot of the "big questions" in science are well documented. There are in some cases some disagreements, but then that just means more reading, and in some case saying: "I don't know yet"

And whether the scientific method has really been as rigorously applied as you think?

Whether it has or it hasn't, it's the best answer we have.

In my opinion, science is something you do, not something you should trust in.

Let me rephrase: I trust the process. I don't necessarily trust the people who claim to carry out the process accurately.

If you think there is a contradiction there, let me try to rephrase it again: I trust the process over time. Things like the general theory of relativity sit on a lot of impressive shoulders and giant mountains of evidence.

Actually, most if not all of scientists start with a premise (a hypothesis / a theory), and then accumulate evidence to support their premise. I'm not sure if another way is even possible. It is hard to blindly feel around, you need some initial premises to know what you are trying to prove or disprove.

I don't disagree with that, I'm just saying that in science truth comes at the end. At the beginning you just have a hypothesis, a potential truth.

Maybe it's an odd comparison, but in a lot of religions it's usually exactly backwards. Everything starts with the truth - the word. Followers are usually told to seek out signs of these truths.

 

[Tahuti]

But religion does indeed sux.

Again, why?

For one, all the art religion inspired more than offsets all the chiefly religious conflicts put together.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Religion << Guessing < Science

 

[bhavv]

Religion << Childhood fairy tales << Guessing < Science

Fix'd

 

[FredLC]

Hmmm... I don't think the OP got its fair share of criticism.

First, it's overly preoccupied with politics. While it is true that there is a degree of political interference in any human endeavor, the very heart of the scientific method is that it provides functional reasons to prefer a given explanation over another.

There is an interesting anecdote regarding relativity; A theory that faced grave criticism early on, because it challenged some very entrenched ideas about how the universe works, at a certain point Hitler said that he could line up over 100 reputable scientists that disagreed from Einstein. The famous response was: "if I was wrong, one would be enough".

But Einstein is a convenient example to the opposed spectrum, because it's hard to imagine a stronger political pull than the rejection, from Einstein, of a Scientific theory, when he was at the peak of his popularity, having had amazed the world with his re-writing of natural law. And that is exactly what the probabilistic explanation of quantum physics got; Einstein dedicated the last two decades of his life to try proving that quantum physics could not be probabilistic, and he even created some darn smart experiments that would prove that explanation was wrong (I would recommend reading about the Einstein/Podowlsky/Rosen Paradox, for those interested).

But, as results always favored the probabilistically explanations when the dust settled (be it the Copenhagen, the "many worlds" or the Feynman theories of the quanta phenomena), not even the unrelenting pull from the man who held sway over the popular opinion on scientific matters at the time could stop the triumph of the functionally better explanation.

Even when we assume science at it's very worst; the most conspiratorial perception, of a cabala of petty, out-of-touch man in white coats, worried with nothing but having their ideas prevailing; and at the same time we imagine religion at it's very best, as an honest effort to give good explanations to the world around (ps.: I do think the other way around is much more commom); still, science have in its DNA that virtuous quality, that golden principle that will allow effective, demonstrable criticism of bad ideas. Just like the impersonal system of Government created in western societies, there is no need that we have angels instead of man working the theses, the checks and balances are hardwired into the system itself.

As religion lacks such control, for being unable to offer function that gives context and relevance for their explanations, that system is hopeless, and can't separate the wheat from the tare, ending up stuck with random and dissociative thoughts instead of coherent and robust constructs. Nothing but tradition bases religion's disproportional representation in our public discourse... because unfortunately, people wanted answers long before we had effective ways of getting them. So the bad ways of the past stuck.

Anyway, because he said it much better than me, I would like to offer to the thread this inspired talk from the physicist David Deutsch, exactly on the topic of how to differentiate a valid explanation from an invalid one.

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation

I would say that his choice of a religious myth as an example of a bad explanation is a coincidence, but I would be lying.

As an anecdotal response to the other main criticism on the OP, I wanted to say that science is hard, but never inscrutable. You can always go there and understand the process behind the conclusions. I am an example of that; as a Lawyer, I have no formal training in physics beyond high-school level. Nevertheless, I decided to learn about particle physics, relativity, and Superstring theory on my own, and today I can describe many of the current physics on these (I am yet to catch up on quantum gravity loops, though).

So, the trust in the chain of knowledge is just a pragmatic part of the process. If every person had to enunciate every single scientific principle on his own, we would still be stuck at the stone age; the advancement of knowledge is a collective methodical process, in contrast to the "revelations" of ready knowledge from religion. In a quote from another scientist that needs no introduction, Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."

In the end, though, the chain of trust is respected, because anyone can look at it and shake it's foundations. The great scientists of mankind are exactly the ones who did just that.

Try to question the word of prophets, though.

Regards .

 

[Tahuti]

The problem with those anti-religious folk who are instead religiously devoted to science, is that taking science too seriously is actually very pseudoscientific. Science is all about disproving things. What pseudosciences like homeopathy do is go to great lengths to "scientifically establish" preconceptions that are already held. Both antireligionism and religion do hold certain preconceptions, but only the former falsely claims to be scientific about it, while the latter case is confined to isolated groups like the Christian science movement that have no mainstream support from faithful at all.

 

[FredLC]

Homeopathy has nothing to do with science. It is in fact an example of the phenomenae know as appropriation, that happens when Scientific jargon is incorporated by people saying gibberish, in order to leech the respectability of science, counting with a public that won't be able to tell the difference.

Again, perhaps it's hard for some people to see that, but the means to do so are always there, always available.

Regards .

 

[Tahuti]

Homeopathy has nothing to do with science. It is in fact an example of the phenomenae know as appropriation, that happens when Scientific jargon is incorporated by people saying gibberish, in order to leech the respectability of science, counting with a public that won't be able to tell the difference.

Again, perhaps it's hard for some people to see that, but the means to do so are always there, always available.

Regards .

I wasn't saying it had anything to do with science. Being unscientific and claiming to be scientific at the same time is exactly what being pseudoscientific is all about.

 

[FredLC]

Ok than, no disagreement there. The context of this thread elicited my clarification anyway, methinks.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Here's the problem with the "Science is better because science WORKS." Theory of epistemology:

Rejecting science also works really, really good too. If you just going with what works, freeriding works great. People with no understanding of science, or even an active repugnance of it can now also cure countless diseases, go into space, and develop nuclear weapons. The number of things you can do with knowledge and faith in the scientific method is actually incredibly negligible, if any.

 

[plarq]

The physicists defend Darwin evolution and biologists defend Big Bang, because Young Earth Creationists are against both.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most people with a scientific background in another field will accept the "Big Bang" and other cosmological theories because they trust that they're being propounded by other scientists who are working under the same scientific paradigm as themselves. They believe, even if they're not personally acquainted with all the reasons for the Big Bang, that they could, if they were sufficiently motivated, find out what those reasons are.

I think that's where science differs fundamentally from scripturally inspired religion.

This is probably my reservation also. Scientists defer to other scientists because they trust in a shared set of methods and processes, not because they imagine those scientists to hold any authority simply through virtue of being scientists.

However, this too carries its own problems, because it's not clear how far scientists have actually considered those methods and processes. Have they really engaged critically with the epistemology? I think a lot of them will simply practice defer to tradition and convention, on this point, so Pangur's broad criticisms of "science" as an ideology remain valid, if slightly qualified. Both "religion" and "science" depend on certain large institutional structures which make a mockery of the proponents of capital-S Science and their claim to pure rationality.

 

[bhavv]

The problem with those anti-religious folk who are instead religiously devoted to science, is that taking science too seriously is actually very pseudoscientific. Science is all about disproving things. What pseudosciences like homeopathy do is go to great lengths to "scientifically establish" preconceptions that are already held. Both antireligionism and religion do hold certain preconceptions, but only the former falsely claims to be scientific about it, while the latter case is confined to isolated groups like the Christian science movement that have no mainstream support from faithful at all.

LMAO @ 'religiously devoted to science'.

Science has clearly demonstrable evidence and logical, rational theory and explanations for all of its conclusions.

Religion makes as much sense as 'the invisible boogeyman living under my bed is real just because I say so. I have absolute faith that it is real'.

I don't even get how you can compare the two as being in anyway similar. Also science has absolutely nothing to do with being against religion, you know there are many scientists who are also religious right?

Religion simply sucks because its a fact that it does. This opinion of mine has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I was thinking about this thread all afternoon trying to think how I might jump in, but then FredLC came in and said everything I was thinking much more eloquently than I could have, so I'm just going to instead declare my support for his point of view.

Well said, good sir.

 

[CavLancer]

With the progress into the holographic universe, science is evolving into religion even if the cosmological constant is ignored and blamed on the multiverse. Takes more faith to believe in the multiverse than a creator but its easier for some who have put their faith in science. Fun stuff, the holographic universe.

 

[Borachio]

Here's the problem with the "Science is better because science WORKS." Theory of epistemology:

Rejecting science also works really, really good too. If you just going with what works, freeriding works great. People with no understanding of science, or even an active repugnance of it can now also cure countless diseases, go into space, and develop nuclear weapons. The number of things you can do with knowledge and faith in the scientific method is actually incredibly negligible, if any.

Does this actually hold water, though?

Don't the people who get into airplanes at least have faith in the technology of flight. Can you really characterize the thoroughly scientific ignorant as rejecting science when they take a trip to sunny climes?

I think they're accepting that the science behind it works, even though they're maybe not doing so consciously.

If they truly rejected it, they wouldn't take the risk of travelling by plane, would they?

I'd reverse your position and say that the number of things you can do without faith in the scientific method is incredibly negligible, if any.

You only need faith when you lack knowledge, I think.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Lets conduct a scientific experiment:

Science: Yay!
Religion: Boo!

Well, it seems that I just have conclusively proven, using science in the form people in this thread percieve it to be, that science rocks religion's socks off.

On to prove that black is white, and determine the speed of an oncoming zebra.